Bias and Trauma

I have been exploring the research and concepts that bias and trauma are deeply linked.  The linkage and directionality are much debated.   Trauma creates bias, and equally, bias creates trauma. It would appear that either can be a starting point, but they definitely feed each other, creating complex positive (healing) and negative (detrimental) feedback loops which extend beyond the individual and their immediate relationships to wider society.     Using systems-mapping to address Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) and trauma: A qualitative study of stakeholder experiences Why does this matter, as all data has a bias?  Fundamental to a decision-making role based on data is to demand that we recognise bias and try to remove bias; however, I am now thinking that if we remove the bias, we assume there is no trauma, and therefore, everyone will be rational.  Yes, there are some big ugly assumptions in that state

Love this - but let's not pretend we all agree on what or why we are doing something.

The future isn’t what it used to be: Here's how strategic foresight can help ; it is a high-quality, well-written, thoughtful piece from WEF.  It is presented by Olivier Woeffray, Practice Lead, Strategic Intelligence, World Economic Forum and Paulo Carvalho, Executive Director, MBA, Lisbon School of Economics & Management. The truth of the opening statement set the scene, “ [We are moving] from a world of relative predictability … to a world with more fragility – greater uncertainty, higher economic volatility, geopolitical confrontations .” However, something niggled me.  I love the future system and exponential thinking; however, I was wondering if the Venn diagram was the right one, but that took me off into thinking about the presentation, not the content.  My gut said I was missing something, but I could add all my initial objections into the future or systems thinking buckets. I was warming to the model and indeed feel it is a positive and valuable contribution, but it

Peak Paradox and #privacy

I have explored privacy and identity in a previous post , taken from the perspective of the individual.  This post is from the perspective of the state/ nation/ law. I commented on Michael Becker's LinkedIn post about his list of words and definitions for the identity/ privacy space . I commented that everyone remains fixated on making their particular solution work to a problem the user has not got which is " #privacy. " Whilst every language and country has an ideal notion of privacy, the wide variety of cultures means there is no unified “concept of privacy”, even if privacy is explicitly named or defined in their specific language law or culture. I asked #chatGPT, the “AI” bot from Google, the question, “ how would a capitalist and socialist view privacy? ”  “Capitalists would see privacy as an important aspect of individual liberty and autonomy and they view privacy as a property right that can be traded or sold, and they may support policies that allow companies

We can be very good at answering questions, but why don't we challenge them?

A problem (among many) with data is that many people ask questions that are easy.  How many and who clicked this button? These are easy to ask, occupy time, fill in KPI cards and are often easy to answer. Why do so few kick back to ask if it is the right question?  Why did they click the button? Oh, we don’t have that data! But we can create constraints that mean we get biased data as we don’t understand human behaviour in context.  ---- In 1973 two behavioural scientists, John Darley and Daniel Batson published " From Jerusalem to Jericho: A study of Situational and Dispositional Variables in Helping Behavior ." It was an investigation into the psychology of prosocial behaviour . Darley and Batson picked students who were studying to be priests at the Princeton Theological Seminary to determine how situational factors influenced prosocial behaviour. Hypothesis : When someone is kind to another, is that because he or she has some innate qualities that lead to kindness—or be

What is the toughest position? A CEO or a goalie?

Which one of the roles is the most challenging, as both are isolated and unforgiving? In either position, the opposition will not like you when you're doing well.  When doing badly, your supporters are not on your side.  Irrespective of if it is a good or bad day in the office, everyone else knows they can do your job better than you can, and your backers are never happy, always wanting more.  So what is the toughest position?  Being ahead If you're thinking three, four, or five plays ahead, you're not suitable for this role. There is a reality to both roles that you have to be ahead, to be in the right position at the right time to ensure success, but everyone else just thinks you are lucky.  Anyone can do the job, but those who can see signals and read the play will excel.   Blame No matter how many great things you do, everyone only remembers you for the one you missed In either position, you have to accept that you’re the last person in the line of defence, and you wil

Chaos and the abyss

This read describes the space between chaos and the abyss, where we find ourselves when we allow machines to make decisions without safeguarding collective criticism or realise they can change our minds.   ----- There is a reality that we are not forced to recognise our collective ethical and own moral bias without others. However, these biases are the basis of our decision-making, so asking a machine to " take an unelected position of trust " and make a decision on our collective behalf creates a space we should explore as we move from human criticism to machine control. Machines are making decisions.    Automation is incredibly powerful and useful, and we continue to learn to reduce bias in automated decision-making by exploring data sets and understanding the outcomes by testing for bias.  As we continue testing, iterating and learning about using past data for future decisions, we expose many of our human frailties and faults.   The decisions we ask machines to make toda

We need more unethical morals!

I explore ethics, morals and integrity in the context of decision-making. This piece explores the void between ethics and morals and why we need this place to exist because it allows us to explore the reason why unethical morals force us to new thinking. The difference in definition between Ethics and Morals Definition : Ethics are guiding principles of conduct of an individual or group. Definition : Morals are principles on which one’s judgments of right and wrong are based. Therefore an important difference between ethics and morals is that ethics are relatively uniform within a group, whereas morals are individual and heavily influenced by local culture and beliefs. How to change someone's mind is a super article from Manfred F. R. Kets de Vries at Insead.  It is important because if we want more people in the moral group, we need those with different ethics to change. And if we want to update our morals, we need to be able to change our ethics. In Manfred’s article, I believ